Global Warming & rising sea level

When 97% of climate scientists agree, I feel wholly justified in using the word "consensus".

The IPCC exists to pass knowledge from scientists to politicians, who generally don't don't have scientific backgrounds.

What the majority of real climate scientists agree on is that the warming we have had and the added carbon dioxide have been beneficial for us. Today we can also see that all climate models have failed in predicting our present climate. As Trenberth said, it's a travesty...

Not sure what makes one a "real" climate scientist, but you'll have a bit of trouble convincing those in California this year as their crops wither and lawns brown. In fact this is the very first time I've heard that it's "beneficial for us".

Use Google..

OK, I just Googled the benefits of Global Warming. It gave me my chuckle of the day, especially things like changing borders between islands where 1 becomes 2. Most of the "benefits" were financial like opening the N/W passage and opening more areas to oil drilling. Making some people richer isn't generally considered the measuring stick for being beneficial for our planet, but it does go to show why I don't think much will be done. Longer growing seasons is pretty good if it weren't countered by more severe droughts.

Good one!
I'm guessing you must have your own personal definition of "real climate scientist".

And as for your strange beliefs on accuracy of climate models, here's a quote from the IPCC:

Predictions were for a rise of between 0.1 and 0.35 deg C, and the actual rise was 0.15 deg C. You are wrong (again).

The fact is that climate models are only accurate when the effects of man-made CO2 is included in the models.

This image shows that models are accurate (bottom graph) when, and only when, they include both natural AND man-made greenhouse gasses.



This image shows the water levels: the levels fall within the IPPC projections (in fact they're pretty much following the IPCC's worst case figures).



And here's IPCC AR4 (black) against measured data (red):



Calling climate models inaccurate is just so very, very wrong!

When I say today, I mean today. Not 15 years ago. Your last graph is showing the hiatus...

Here it is compared to an average of 102 IPCC models;

Your image is showing data for the troposphere. It's surface temperatures where we're seeing large increases, and this image has no impact on that.

Also, if you want to compare models to measurements, make sure you use the latest (i.e. "best") models from the IPCC, not 102 old models.

Here is a graph with observed land and ocean temperatures and it looks almost the same to me..?

The arrogance of the heart of man that something as immutably chaotic as weather is now both understood, long-term future understood AND affectable is quite breathtaking.

So the 'ideal' climate is.....what?

According to John Coleman, former meteorologist for Good Morning America, and founder of The Weather Channel, says that there's a direct correlation between the sun's energy / radiation output and the fluctuation in Earth's mean temperature.

It might also be prudent to recall that at one time nearly all of Earth was very tropical and exceedingly hot during dinosaur times, and before the the first animals came into being, at one time it is theorized that Earth was essentially a giant snowball after cooling.

It seems likely that our industries tossing chemicals into the air has some effect, but it seems more likely to me that the sun's energy output probably outweighs all other factors.

Climate change is only half the equation IMHO. The other half is ocean acidification. That is a bigger threat than what's happening on land.

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification?

Just to keep the debate alive, when scientists are making "projections", it is not the same as forecasts or predictions. Also, the CO2 that goes into the oceans (about half of what is released) makes no difference if it comes from fossil- or biofuel...

It should also be important to recall that we are essentially emerging from an "ice age". A thing our very distant (prehistoric) ancestors experienced with full force. Said ice age saw the rise of such animals like Woolly Mammoths, Woolly Rhinoceros, and other large creatures that could insulate themselves against cold.

Prior to those eras animals were, quite literally, thin skinned to help radiate heat and keep cool. Meaning that prior to the ice ages (I can't remember how many are said to have been) things were exceedingly warm, and the amount of carbon circulating in the Earth was fairly heavy.

I bring all this up because, as I stated in my previous post, things were a lot hotter than we can imagine. Prior to the dinosaur era, when much of the land mass was still locked, the interior of the super continent was said to have been so hot to have been uninhabitable by any animals or reptiles.

Meaning that during the age of the dinosaurs things were hot, but there were still polar ice caps. But that even before that tropical era, things were even hotter for the animals and reptiles that preceded the dinosaurs.

All this means that any warming trend we may be experiencing cannot said to be new. And given that much of the Earth was tropical at one point, and even hotter, and given that we're emerging from an ice age, we may actually be returning to Earth's normal temperature before we came on the scene.

I really don't like pulling from Wicked-pedia (you can tell I don't put much stock in it), but this graph shows exactly what I've been trying to post about;



Note the blue and red area during our history at the right, note the ice age in light blue, and note the black and green sections denoting two pre-historic, pre-mammal, pre-human epochs.

Note that during the "green era", up to just before man came on the scene, temperatures were 14 degrees Celsius above average all over the globe.

That's pretty darn hot. And, that was without man-made industrialization, and the only source of green house gases were volcanoes and whatever herd animals there were generating methane.

Is the Earth getting warmer? Probably. Are we affecting it? Possibly. Is all of Earth's warming, or even a good part of it due to man's activities? In my judgment? Not a chance.

If you think we can dump billions of tons of CO, CO2 or the myriad other items into our environment every year and not cause harm you are a special kind of ignorant! Global warming caused by humans is no longer a "theory" its fact per most of the scientist that actually study these things for a living. We have condemned your children and grand children (wife and I chose not to have them) to a not so nice fate. I'm convinced the tipping point has already passed and there is not much we can do now. Keep your head in the sand as it probably does not matter now....

This is an entirely different issue from 'global warming' or 'climate change' or whatever they will brand it next. And your name calling is unnecessary.

This is about money. Predetermined results for the purpose of promoting an agenda. Financed by the leftist religion of wealth redistribution believers.

One thing to note: the significant climate changes or ocean acidification events were accompanied by mass extinctions. The Permian-Triassic mass extinction killed off about 90% of the water-based species about about 70% of the land-based species. There are some that believe that we are in the early stages of a sixth mass extinction, this time, mostly caused by man-made activities.


http://earthsky.org/earth/ocean-acidification-drove-earths-largest-mass-extinction

I heard it will only affect some journalists and politicians this time..?

I don't think mass extinctions will be limited to journalists and politicians as much as we would like it to be so.